He cited China, which has long been criticized for its Internet censorship, as an example. “Right now, China can disconnect parts of its Internet in times of war. We need to be able to do that too.”

Yes, and eventually Lieberman might like to tell us how he likes the way China deals with Human Rights too.

3:15 pm June 20, 2010

Ken Wheeler wrote:

Does anyone still listen to anything Lieberman says??

4:31 pm June 20, 2010

Anti NWO wrote:

What? they bribe him too? Just like no lobbiest will work in not our White House,but" my White House." Let'em just keep running over us,armed America will be the last standing.This incompetent regime will set back the Bilderbergs 20 years. You can take a nickle a day from everyone everyday, you can take a dollar once.

5:09 pm June 20, 2010

Anonymous wrote:

We are not China!

6:41 pm June 20, 2010

Maine wrote:

What does the interned have to do with war? We are in 2 wars right now. Iraq and Afganistan
It just dosn't make sense to me.

6:53 pm June 20, 2010

Patriotson wrote:

Obama's desire for more power is measured in this bill. Thin skined and unable to provide the presidential image America wants means that he must be able to stop the information stream from circulating in order to keep critics at bay. The policy of a socialist agenda is first to get the congress to boot step the policy; then critize the supreme court and weaken its ability to apply the rule of law; then attack the public's 1st amendment rights in the constitution and weaken it, then slap a black out on the ability of Americans to communicate with each other. We are in dangerous times here and not very far from the implementation of a total dictatorship on the basic freedoms of America.

6:53 pm June 20, 2010

Ir Lon wrote:

Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar in 9-11, has written a book about the next new danger, cyber attack.
It is a real danger. I don't know what to comment on this, except some of us be jonesin' if you turn off the net.

6:57 pm June 20, 2010

William wrote:

Read "Cyberwar" by Richard Clarke (Counter-terrorism adviser to Clinton and GW Bush) before you make the mistake of underestimating the US's vulnerability to cyberwar. China already has the power to shut down our electric grids, North Korea probably does as well (they train hackers from middle-school up). State sponsored hackers could re-arrange ownership rights to financial instruments or just scramble the data so we don't know who owns what, shutting down our economy. UPS deliveries could be re-routed, as could trains, as could our military if they got in deep enough (and Russia already has). Cyber attacks have been used successfully in wars already. If we get into a fight with China, they will be able to isolate their critical infrastructure from our military hackers (yes, we have lots of them) but we will be wide open to theirs (yes, they have lots too). This means that they know that we cannot respond in kind to attacks. This sounds like a very sensible approach (as long as it is written well), don't underestimate the damage that could be wrought on us, everything we do is connected to the internet somehow.

7:17 pm June 20, 2010

Andy A wrote:

One has to remember that originaly the internet system - DARPA and ARPA -was not designed for the general public but mainly by and for the Department of Defense , in cooperation with certain research labs and universities .

So now Joe Lieberman want to create a denial of services for the internet users .

Perhaps it may be time to create a " freelance " internet system independent of the present infrastructures and government control , war or no war .

10:47 pm June 20, 2010

orlandovjc wrote:

One can only hope that we can get rid of these communist parading as liberals disguised as Democrats. When are we going to put a stop to the Nanny state being forced upon us "in our own best interes"? When are we going to stop the STATE from trying to take over everything? When we have to get in a breadline? Everytime a politican says "no way" you can believe that he means "I have found NO WAY to do it yet".

1:14 am June 21, 2010

dagny taggart wrote:

this man is evil. with every measure he takes, the country is rendered weaker and more powerless. barack obama will not stop until he is ruler of the world. impeach lucifer now.

3:50 am June 21, 2010

lysander wrote:

Lieberman doesn't want to protect you, he wants to control you.

To such as he I say; ' keep your filthy hands off the internet'. Its the only free place left.

8:08 am June 21, 2010

Tom Gleinser wrote:

He wants to be able to control all news sources in times of war. He remembers that it was journalist constantly embarrasing the U.S. in Vietnam that ended that war. War is good for politicians. Gets the people's minds off of the real problems.

10:12 am June 21, 2010

Spy* wrote:

*
*
*
*

HAI GUISE

ENEMAESZE OV UNKL SAM HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE OIL FLOW IN THE GULF,

AND HAVE DEVELOPED A GREATER APPRECIATION OV THE VALUE OV INDUSTRIAL SABOTAGE

AS A WAY AND A MEANS OF ATTAKKING AMERRYKA

AND GETTING A RESULT

*

ASTA

10:21 am June 21, 2010

JB wrote:

The usual wackos and crackpots are out, hyperventilating about presidential power grabs. Where were you when the last administration was concentrating executive power, including the VP's office, bungling into wars we couldn't pay for, subverting the Constitution, and generally dragging the image of the US through the mud? Nowhere - because you supported such activity as long as it came from the "right" side. That's the definition of an empty-headed partisan hack: it's not the policy that matters, but who is promoting it. So obviously, "taking control of the Internet" or "shutting down the Internet' is the next right-wing bugaboo that neocons will try to place around Obama's neck; never mind if there's any truth to it. The wackos will ignore the real need for cyber-security in their latest short-sighted attempt to scrounge a few political points. And they call themselves "patriots."

10:47 am June 21, 2010

Andy A wrote:

@ JB,

Infortunately we are addicted to the idea of any new wars in the future that may be in the pipeline , from any administration .
If Obama will say that we have to pick a fight with Iran , the vast majority of the masse will blindly support it .
And of course we like all wars until it appears to be a lost cause with no possibility of a positive outcome like in Afghanistan .
If we can complain about the " nanny state " at home , we should also forcefully reject our role to be an " international nanny state " .

11:12 am June 21, 2010

Anonymous wrote:

George Orwell was wrong in 2 ways. Location and Timing.

12:14 pm June 21, 2010

mrgardon wrote:

Outside of the foolishness of going to war for us 'little people' cutting off communications for us 'little people' is the hight of foolishness.

12:15 pm June 21, 2010

Steven Delmonte wrote:

welcome to 1984, this is a classic power grab by the government.... I would say this this the equivalent of the patriot act for the internet, soon only "approved websites" will be allowed and all news on the internet will be highly filtered.. so sad what is happening to my country..

1:05 pm June 21, 2010

Daniel wrote:

It boggles my mind that so many have to ask "where were you when Bush did this..." Where were we? We were out there fighting against the Patriot Act and everything else he was doing! Fair weather republicrats can't see past their 2-month brain cycles. I fought against Clinton, I fought against Bush, I fight against Obama. You people don't seem to remember too much, but remember this; Whether it's partisan or bi partisan they get they're biggest paychecks from the same people. Enough is enough.

I hate excessive government power as much as the next guy, but some common sense needs to reign here. Right now the government equivalent of the internet is anarchy, and the internet has been given tremendous power. We cut off our noses to spite our faces if we don't take some basic precautions against a cyber attack. We're way too vulnerable right now. Unfortunately, no one cares to provide us with the details of the proposal on the table; they'd rather just rant out of ignorance.

Let me ask you this - if our enemies were able to poison our water supply, would you oppose giving the government the ability to turn off the water?

3:21 pm June 21, 2010

dagny taggart wrote:

no dishonesty at al, jd. ultimately, this president is our enemy - he has proven it time and time again. therefore, i'm not keene on him giving him the power to turn off our lines of communication. although it was his primary advantage when he was a candidate, the internet has turned on him, with the help of grassroots, spontaneous communication from voters. it is the internet that is most responsible for the tide change. i'm sure there are already times he wishes he could pull the plug. further, since nothing in this man's history nor his mode of operation since he has been potus reassures me that he is not an enemy of the state, i have not one scintilla of faith that he will use this power to benefit Americans. i believe that he demonstrates on a daily basis that he cannot be trusted to promote America or American ideals, thus, the only conclusion i can draw is that whether it is our known external enemy, or the one sitting in our whitehouse, the off switch shouldn't be within reach of either of them. i would be fine if gwb had had the power - no matter his faults, and they were numerous, one thing could never be doubted: bush loves his country. not so with his successor. i stand by my long held belief that lucifer must be impeached. this is just anothing item on the check list...

12:03 am July 8, 2010

Inspector Clouseau wrote:

Yes, Joseph Liebermann, tell us what you know about this "internet" thingy.
Do you know what a "router" is?
What is IPv6?
What does VPN stand for?
What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve?

9:11 pm October 14, 2010

Zamjr86 wrote:

anyone know the bill's designation number?
I wanna call him up and strongly condemn the "internet shutdown control" bill
and tell him exactly how it can be misused

7:46 pm December 12, 2010

Alan wrote:

Thats it shut out dissenting voices at the more crucial time to have them. So much for checks and balances.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.